I-D Action:draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings-00.txt

[John C Klensin]

--On Tuesday, June 30, 2009 08:47 -0400 Vint Cerf
<vint at google.com> wrote:

>...
> Mark says  that for lookup purposes we are creating a larger
> class than A-labels with the property that the lookup process
> will
> convert them into A-label format. For precision, describing
> that
> fact has some value. John, I can make a stab at drawing it
> just to
> see how difficult that gets. Maybe we can just say it without
> drawing
> it?

If there is agreement that we want to introduce an M-label
category and that it should be disjoint from U-labels rather
than a superset of them, I know how to draw it and can go to
work to fit it into the picture.  I believe the problem is real
estate on the page rather than a conceptual requirement.   IMO,
it would be odd, given the existing representation of all
categories of labels in the pictures, to have one category that
is not drawn in.  But I'll follow whatever guidance you want to
offer.

   john